Karzai's election: Worth dying for?

THE entire troubling pattern of Afghanistan's presidential election does not offer any hope of improved credibility for the national government or its capacity to govern.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai kept his job after his leading challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, dropped out of a runoff election the incumbent had reluctantly accepted. The first vote was a parody of an election, rife with fraud and abuse.

Abdullah apparently understood that with winter coming on, and Karzai's Pashtun majority behind him, the runoff — fair or not — was a futile effort.

Futile effort. Those two words hang over President Obama's pending announcement about sending more U.S. troops to fight the Taliban insurgency and chase the remnants of al-Qaida.

Can the Obama administration say with confidence the United States has an ally in power in the central government? The White House knows with certainty the leadership in Kabul is seen as remote and detached from the rest of the country, with no ability to govern or protect local villages.

Monumental corruption and the financial power of the narcotics trade stunt needed changes that would be cruelly understated as reforms. A national identity exists, but the practical loyalties in everyday life are ethnic and tribal.

Karzai's government does not have the resources — the national army and police forces — to reclaim territory from insurgents without U.S. help, let alone hold it after international forces leave.

Obama is not only obligated to define America's interest in Afghanistan, along with the regional stake in Pakistan, but also to explain that any gains are not a short-term investment of American lives.

Is President Obama on the verge of committing U.S. troops to die for another election like the mess that just ended?